Connect with us:


The Legal Affairs and Safety Committee has released its report following the inquiry into the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023.

The key issues raised during the committee’s examination of the Bill included:

  • termination of a community titles scheme for economic reasons
  • approval of alternative insurance arrangements for bodies corporate who cannot obtain insurance on the market
  • body corporate by-laws relating to smoking
  • body corporate by-laws relating to pets
  • towing of vehicles by bodies corporate
  • enforcing by-laws between schemes in a layered community titles scheme
  • body corporate governance, documentation and administration
  • using sunset clauses to terminate an ‘off the plan’ land sale contract
  • early release of deposits for ‘off the plan’ land sale contracts
  • compliance with the Legislative Standards Act 1992
  • compliance with the Human Rights Act 2019.

The committee recommends the Bill be passed.

Read on for a summary of 9 recommendations made by the committee and for the full report.


Recommendation 1

The committee recommends the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 be passed.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government develop an education campaign with the CTL Working Group to provide guidance and resources to organisations and individuals to support the proposed reforms including, in particular, information on the dispute resolution processes available for lot owners in community titles schemes.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government review the proposed section 167 and consider whether guidance (such as statutory notes or examples) should be provided around the word ‘regularly’ contained with the section.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government, in collaboration with the CTL Working Group, review the interaction between the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 regarding timeframes for requests to keep pets from a lot owner or tenant.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government, in collaboration with the CTL Working Group, consider providing additional guidance and resources to bodies corporate regarding their powers to tow vehicles that are parked in contravention of a by-law, in particular, vehicles owned or operated by visitors.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government consider amending the relevant sections of the 5 module regulations made under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 to clarify whether the prescribed fee for obtaining a copy of a record kept by the body corporate applies to digital copies as well as printed copies.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government review, within 24 months of the implementation of the Bill, the exercise of sunset clauses giving consideration to current housing pressures, practices by developers and sellers in relation to inappropriate use of sunset clauses, and the associated impact on consumer confidence and housing supply.

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government conduct a review within 24 months of the commencement of the Bill to determine and address any unintended consequences that may have arisen by the proposed amendments.

Recommendation 9

The committee recommends that the Queensland Government in conjunction with organisations such as REIQ review the interaction between the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Minimum Housing Standards, as prescribed by the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, in the particular with respect to the how these reforms impact on owners in a community titles scheme.

You can read the full report here.

Article Contributed by Smart Strata 

Leave a Reply

  1. Mannly Dubroy

    I would like to read the review by the Queensland government of possible consequences. that may have arisen after the proposal to the amendments..

  2. Sandra St Ledger

    May I clarify that I am not a current member of UOAQ and nor do I oppose pets living onsite under the control of responsible residents, owners or tenants, where units can be shown to provide a suitable environment. I strongly oppose short term tenants or any “visitor” arriving with pets and anticipating that they have the right to bring such pets onsite.
    I listened to some (not all) of the dialogue online re the proposed legislation and felt the only persons (during the time I was tuned in) who providing informed, relevant, and realistic views were the UOAQ representatives. I was horrified to hear from them that, “Of equal concern is that there is insufficient representation on the Community Titles Legislation Working Group (CTL) by representatives of unit owner groups.” They also said that this group was largely made up of legal representatives of stake holders rather than the stake holders themselves. This would challenge the credibility of this committee.
    As is currently topical, 20 years in the strata industry has taught me very clearly that:
    • Having “a voice” matters far less than finding “ears” attached to someone with depth of knowledge of the industry if you expect reasonable and realistic change.
    • The “voices” that are heard most loudly and most frequently are those of developers and other industry players who are not direct and ongoing stake holders as are unit owners.
    I will refer only to 2 issues raised in the information provided.

    Section 2.1: Termination of Bodies Corporate and replacement by new developments.
    The feedback from owners, (particularly residents) outlined concerns that as the ‘termination process is heavily influenced by/favours developers, this will contribute to over-development, and local infrastructure may not be sufficient, may not address housing needs’.
    The voices of the most basic stake holders i.e. the resident owners who stand to lose their homes to redevelopment and are potentially facing unexpected financial hardship due to higher costs in replacement buildings have simply not been heard in contrast to the voices of the developer/financial sector.

    Section 2.4 The Bill proposes to amend the BCCM Act to prohibit by-laws that ban occupiers from having animals; or by-laws that restrict the number, type or size of animals than an occupier may have. Occupiers will still require written approval from the body corporate to have an animal.
    Fortunately, the proposal now, at least, alters the terminology to read “occupiers” so owners need to word their by-laws carefully to prohibit short term tenants and visitors from allowing pets onto the property but the use of the word ”animal” and in “unrestricted numbers” is most concerning. (In fact, the possibilities make the mind boggle.)

    Of course, a deeper knowledge of legislation allows for official committee approval to occur only via a vote outside a committee meeting (a lengthy/costly process) or at committee meeting held roughly every 3 months. (The issue of relevant costs has not been dealt with.) The only views expressed in depth in the report are those of the REIQ who opposed the 6-week reasonable time frame given the legislated guidelines. Now the last time I looked, the REIQ don’t represent unit owners. They sell real estate and obviously have a strong vested interest in selling lots as fast as possible. It has not been uncommon for misinformation re “pet friendly” requirements to be given to prospective customers which advantages the real estate agents not the existing lot owners. Surely this position of vested interest has to be obvious to any thinking person and the value of such advice limited.
    In conclusion, the voice of owners directly involved in the industry both financially and emotionally needs to be heard far more loudly and clearly than it has been in the past.